Obamacare Already Having Adverse Effects

Ubiquitin · Oct 21, 2012

Rocketman1981 said: ↑

The statement above you wrote is an example. You write this in response to actions of large business to make changes and hours to soften the financial blow to profits of the ACA.

Have to call you out on your statements. You have the power to help more poor people from dying than most yet you're unwilling to run a free clinic and sacrifice money, while you begrudge a company with sarcastic commentary for doing so.

I'm just calling it out.
Click to expand...

That does not equate I support the company to forcibly pay for its employees insurance. Far from it. It was made to point out how much conservatives feel entitled. A hypocrite wouldn't give his employees health insurance while bemoaning another company for not doing so. Apples to apples.

And I am not in primary care. So I couldn't open a clinic anyway.

Granville · Oct 21, 2012

Rocketman1981 said: ↑

Did you really just tell me to come to the schoolyard to 'say so'??? Lol....I gotta love the gangsta med school student nerd and his buddies waiting for the fight outside.

Hahahaha..that is the funniest thing i've ever heard and please don't talk about education and such when your signature is Go Coogs meaning you probably went to U of H, which I'm sorry to say is truly not an institution of great learning, though most really innovative thought is done outside of the walls of a school.

Still can't believe I just got challenged to come to a med school playground and "Say it to yo face" hahahahahahah
Click to expand...

I laughed every time he brought that up too. I can't imagine a future doctor telling his classmates. "hey guys, this dude on the Rockets Fan Forum has been talking bad about Doctors. He's coming down here to take this internet squabble to the next level. Who's with me??? We will show him!!!"

QAA sounds like a little kid.

rpr52121 · Oct 21, 2012

Azadre said: ↑

I am very in favor of a single pool for the entire country. Or at least on a per state basis.
Click to expand...

Only if the single pool is the base plan for everyone and there is ability for people to purchase supplemental insurance on top of it. However a single payer system in the US would be fraught with issues, because of who is making decisions on what is paid for in certain instances or not, making sure that incentives are set in place for true preventative medicine, and trying to finally make torte reform a true plan for all 50 states, even those with idiotic state constitutions who would balk at trying to change it (like Kentucky).

There are numerous barriers to a single payer-for-insurance model given how disjointed and scattered the medical system has become, and it would likely take another massive congressional bill that is upheld by the Supreme Court once the states challenge it or an actual constitutional amendment.

Classic · Dec 11, 2012

So, if people won't have access to more than 30 hrs a week to avoid Obamacare, what are they supposed to do?

It was a forced alternative minimum tax for working middle class. Corporate double talk & their true ambitions on full display.

Walmart Avoids Obligation to Obamacare said:

Walmart publicly supported the Affordable Care Act but now is joining the companies that try to avoid their obligation to provide workers with health insurance as require by Obamacare. Several years ago the retail giant announced that it would provide healthcare benefit to its part-time, low earning workers. But it was short lived as Walmart pulled back on its commitment in 2011, when it said that the premium rate increases made it beyond the company’s budget.

Existing Walmart employees as well as all workers hired after February 1, 2012 those are classified as part-time will not receive health insurance. According to the 2013 Walmart Associate’s Benefit Book, the manual for low level Walmart employees, part-time workers who were hired during or after 2011 will be subjected to Annual Benefits Eligibility Check every August.
Workers hired after February 1, 2012 who fail to average 30 hours per week will lose their healthcare benefits on the following January. Part time workers hired after January 15, 2011 but before February 1, 2012 can still get Walmart healthcare benefit if they work at least 24 hours per week. Workers hired before 2011 will not be cut off from Walmart provided health insurance.
The company controls its worker work schedules and will have the opportunity to designate worker hours in such a manner that they will keep the hours below the requirement. This will keep the company within the boundaries of the law.

Employers make plans to cut employee work hours in order to deny work insurance to their workers as benefit of employment. It looks like Walmart has been planning to make this move right from the start. As early as 2009, the retailer surprised everyone when it expressed its support for Obamacare. Now it used the Affordable Care Act to get out of the obligation to give healthcare benefit for its employees.

http://tickerreport.com/walmart-avoids-obligation-to-obamacare/3380/
Click to expand...

Major · Dec 11, 2012

Classic said: ↑

So, if people won't have access to more than 30 hrs a week to avoid Obamacare, what are they supposed to do?

It was a forced alternative minimum tax for working middle class. Corporate double talk & their true ambitions on full display.
Click to expand...

This article doesn't make any sense. Walmart was already providing health care to employees that worked 30 hrs a week (or actually 24, according to the link). The reason they supported Obamacare was that it wouldn't affect them - they were already providing the required insurance - and it might affect their competitors.

Their decision to cut back their insurance isn't related to Obamacare - it's related to the fact that they are trying to cut costs. They would have made this same move with or without Obamacare existing.

Classic · Dec 11, 2012

Major said: ↑

This article doesn't make any sense. Walmart was already providing health care to employees that worked 30 hrs a week (or actually 24, according to the link). The reason they supported Obamacare was that it wouldn't affect them - they were already providing the required insurance - and it might affect their competitors.

Their decision to cut back their insurance isn't related to Obamacare - it's related to the fact that they are trying to cut costs. They would have made this same move with or without Obamacare existing.
Click to expand...

I read it as an opinion piece. Who knows. The post election announcement timing from big corps just feel slimy. I also read this article today, maybe coincides:

Surprise: New insurance fee in health overhaul law said:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Your medical plan is facing an unexpected expense, so you probably are, too. It's a new, $63-per-head fee to cushion the cost of covering people with pre-existing conditions under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

The charge, buried in a recent regulation, works out to tens of millions of dollars for the largest companies, employers say. Most of that is likely to be passed on to workers.

Employee benefits lawyer Chantel Sheaks calls it a "sleeper issue" with significant financial consequences, particularly for large employers.

"Especially at a time when we are facing economic uncertainty, (companies will) be hit with a multi-million dollar assessment without getting anything back for it," said Sheaks, a principal at Buck Consultants, a Xerox subsidiary.

Based on figures provided in the regulation, employer and individual health plans covering an estimated 190 million Americans could owe the per-person fee.

The Obama administration says it is a temporary assessment levied for three years starting in 2014, designed to raise $25 billion. It starts at $63 and then declines.

Most of the money will go into a fund administered by the Health and Human Services Department. It will be used to cushion health insurance companies from the initial hard-to-predict costs of covering uninsured people with medical problems. Under the law, insurers will be forbidden from turning away the sick as of Jan. 1, 2014.

The program "is intended to help millions of Americans purchase affordable health insurance, reduce unreimbursed usage of hospital and other medical facilities by the uninsured and thereby lower medical expenses and premiums for all," the Obama administration says in the regulation. An accompanying media fact sheet issued Nov. 30 referred to "contributions" without detailing the total cost and scope of the program.

Of the total pot, $5 billion will go directly to the U.S. Treasury, apparently to offset the cost of shoring up employer-sponsored coverage for early retirees.

The $25 billion fee is part of a bigger package of taxes and fees to finance Obama's expansion of coverage to the uninsured. It all comes to about $700 billion over 10 years, and includes higher Medicare taxes effective this Jan. 1 on individuals making more than $200,000 per year or couples making more than $250,000. People above those threshold amounts also face an additional 3.8 percent tax on their investment income.

But the insurance fee had been overlooked as employers focused on other costs in the law, including fines for medium and large firms that don't provide coverage.

"This kind of came out of the blue and was a surprisingly large amount," said Gretchen Young, senior vice president for health policy at the ERISA Industry Committee, a group that represents large employers on benefits issues.

Word started getting out in the spring, said Young, but hard cost estimates surfaced only recently with the new regulation. It set the per capita rate at $5.25 per month, which works out to $63 a year.

America's Health Insurance Plans, the major industry trade group for health insurers, says the fund is an important program that will help stabilize the market and mitigate cost increases for consumers as the changes in Obama's law take effect.

But employers already offering coverage to their workers don't see why they have to pony up for the stabilization fund, which mainly helps the individual insurance market. The redistribution puts the biggest companies on the hook for tens of millions of dollars.

"It just adds on to everything else that is expected to increase health care costs," said economist Paul Fronstin of the nonprofit Employee Benefit Research Institute.

The fee will be assessed on all "major medical" insurance plans, including those provided by employers and those purchased individually by consumers. Large employers will owe the fee directly. That's because major companies usually pay upfront for most of the health care costs of their employees. It may not be apparent to workers, but the insurance company they deal with is basically an agent administering the plan for their employer.

The fee will total $12 billion in 2014, $8 billion in 2015 and $5 billion in 2016. That means the per-head assessment would be smaller each year, around $40 in 2015 instead of $63.

It will phase out completely in 2017 — unless Congress, with lawmakers searching everywhere for revenue to reduce federal deficits — decides to extend it.

http://money.msn.com/health-and-life-insurance/news.aspx?feed=AP&date=20121210&id=15884956
Click to expand...

juicystream · Dec 11, 2012

Major said: ↑

This article doesn't make any sense. Walmart was already providing health care to employees that worked 30 hrs a week (or actually 24, according to the link). The reason they supported Obamacare was that it wouldn't affect them - they were already providing the required insurance - and it might affect their competitors.

Their decision to cut back their insurance isn't related to Obamacare - it's related to the fact that they are trying to cut costs. They would have made this same move with or without Obamacare existing.
Click to expand...

Wal-Mart's part-time workers will now be able to get much cheaper health insurance via the exchanges with subsidies from the government. It doesn't even make sense for them to cover those employees anymore, since they would probably be better off through the exchange.

Batman Jones · Dec 12, 2012

thadeus said: ↑

This isn't the result of Obamacare. This is the result of Olive Garden/Red Lobster choosing profit over people.

It's funny that the idea of 'wealth' is so ingrained in the culture that people just view it as something natural - like a rainstorm, or a mountain that you just have to drive your wagon train around. It isn't that. It's the result of choices of individuals and boards of individuals. There's nothing 'natural' about it.
Click to expand...

Your jokes are okay but it's posts like this that make you a top favorite of mine.

Commodore · Dec 12, 2012

http://washingtonexaminer.com/democ...ng-obamacare-tax/article/2515711#.UMiDr7aJW01

Sixteen Democratic senators who voted for the Affordable Care Act are asking that one of its fundraising mechanisms, a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices scheduled to take effect January 1, be delayed. Echoing arguments made by Republicans against Obamacare, the Democratic senators say the levy will cost jobs — in a statement Monday, Sen. Al Franken called it a “job-killing tax” — and also impair American competitiveness in the medical device field.

The senators, who made the request in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, are Franken, Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer, Patty Murray, John Kerry, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Joseph Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Robert Casey, Debbie Stabenow, Barbara Mikulski, Kay Hagan, Herb Kohl, Jeanne Shaheen, and Richard Blumenthal. All voted for Obamacare.

Two other Democrats, senators-elect Joe Donnelly and Elizabeth Warren, also signed the letter. Donnelly voted for Obamacare as a member of the House. Warren was not in Congress at the time.

“The medical technology industry directly employs over 400,000 people in the United States and is responsible for a total of two million skilled manufacturing jobs,” the senators wrote in a December 4 letter to Reid. “We must do all we can to ensure that our country maintains its global leadership position in the medical technology industry and keeps good jobs here at home.”
Click to expand...

Taxes kill jobs? Who knew?

bobmarley · May 30, 2013

Obamacare Reminder: Even If You Like Your Plan, You Can't Necessarily Keep It

Let's begin with a verbatim quote from President Obama from July of 2009, touting the legislative perfection that would be Obamacare:

“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”
Click to expand...

This unambiguous, clearly-stated pledge was demonstrably false when it was first uttered and has remained so to this day. The latest piece of evidence, via the Associated Press (headline: "Like Your Healthcare Policy? You May Be Losing It"):

Many people who buy their own health insurance could get surprises in the mail this fall: cancellation notices because their current policies aren't up to the basic standards of President Barack Obama's health care law. They, and some small businesses, will have to find replacement plans — and that has some state insurance officials worried about consumer confusion. Also, it doesn't seem to square with one of the president's best known promises about his health care overhaul: "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan." ... The Obama administration did not respond directly to questions about the potential fallout from cancellation notices ... For the most part, state insurance commissioners are giving insurers the option of canceling existing plans or changing them to comply with new federal requirements.
Click to expand...

"Canceling" and "changing" do not equal "keeping," which was the promise. The CBO estimated last year that up to 20 million Americans could lose their current coverage under Obamacare. Other projections peg the number at 35 million, or more. With the media focused on the administration's myriad scandals, the president is gearing up for yet another public relations tour on behalf of the law that he never sold to the public, despite delivering dozens of speeches. His new plan? More speeches, natch, plus plenty of taxpayer-funded propaganda. If your presidency were sagging beneath the weight of scandal, and your top legislative accomplishment remained enduringly unpopular with the public, to whom would you turn for help? If your instant reply was "Nancy Pelosi," you're in luck. Have fun with this, Democrats:

A document circulated to House Democrats by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — and obtained by BuzzFeed — offers some details of the timing of the health-care plan: Rates and details of plans will become public in September for the 34 states that haven’t put together their own plans. The goals, Pelosi writes in a “dear colleague” letter that begins the document, are “to educate our constituents about the new law, help to implement it, and strengthen the hands of those who have worked for this historic reform.”
Click to expand...

Pelosi's guide to finally selling Obamacare runs 78 pages long, which sounds a bit unwieldy until you remember what they're trying to summarize (while editing out all the bad news). But don't panic, Democrats. Follow your super-popular leader's game plan, and everything should be fine.

Amiga · May 30, 2013

California seems to have started off good. We'll know much much more by the end of this year on health care insurance premium costs to Consumer (not the only factor that count, but probably the main one). Will this work to lower costs or stabilize it... at least for 2014?

Other factors will have to wait longer.

Before than, it's mostly noise and will continue to be noise.

basso · Jul 2, 2013

Health-Law Employer Mandate Said to Be Delayed to 2015
By Mike Dorning and Alex Wayne - Jul 2, 2013
Businesses won’t be penalized next year if they don’t provide workers health insurance after the Obama administration decided to delay a key requirement under its health-care law, two administration officials said.

The decision will come in regulatory guidance to be issued later this week. It addresses vehement complaints from employer groups about the administrative burden of reporting requirements, though it may also affect coverage provided to some workers.

The two officials, who asked not to be identified to discuss the move ahead of its announcement, said the administration decided to wait until 2015 before enforcing the employer mandate in order to simplify reporting requirements and give businesses more time to adapt their health-care coverage.

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act includes financial penalties on businesses with more than 50 employees that fail to provide health insurance that meets minimum standards and tests for affordability.

The White House had been in discussions with business groups over complaints about the reporting requirements, and senior officials believe they can simplify the process, the officials said. President Barack Obama’s administration plans to invite employer groups to discuss ways of simplifying administrative burdens created by the mandate, they said.

Most large employers already provide coverage that meets the law’s requirements, the officials said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print...loyer-mandate-said-to-be-delayed-to-2015.html

Commodore · Jul 2, 2013

pathetic, pushing back employer mandate until after midterm elections...

is any part of Obamacare actually law, or does the executive branch just get to do whatever it wants? A waiver here, a delay there. Whatever Sebelius wants, she is queen of healthcare.

I guess Hillary will be the one to finally face the consequences of this turd.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>"41 percent of [employers] interviewed had suspended hiring because of Obamacare." <a href="http://t.co/hPO06oPaOi" title="http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/lipstick-obamacare-pig_738062.html#" org_href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/lipstick-obamacare-pig_738062.html#">weeklystandard.com/articles/lipst…</a></p>— Ben Domenech (@bdomenech) <a href="https://twitter.com/bdomenech/status/352178129005068288" data-datetime="2013-07-02T16:33:03+00:00">July 2, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Delaying the employer mandate to 2015 is a relief to Senate Dems, worried about the political blowback in the runup to midterms</p>— Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) <a href="https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/352177559783477250" data-datetime="2013-07-02T16:30:48+00:00">July 2, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

basso · Jul 2, 2013

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Nation of laws.</p>— Ben Domenech (@bdomenech) <a href="https://twitter.com/bdomenech/statuses/352184286868275201">July 2, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

basso · Jul 2, 2013

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>I'm not entirely sure this is gonna work out like the Admin thinks.</p>— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) <a href="https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/statuses/352216761648685057">July 3, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Suppose I get hired next year by a firm that decides not to make health insurance part of my benefits package. Suppose it has 100 employees.</p>— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) <a href="https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/statuses/352217125118676995">July 3, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Suppose I discover it's costing me more to buy insurance than it would have cost for my employer to procure it at a group rate.</p>— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) <a href="https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/statuses/352217254940782594">July 3, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>So, suppose I sue my employer for failing to comply with ACA. Note: Obama is suspending *employer* reporting requirements and penalties.</p>— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) <a href="https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/statuses/352217497770012672">July 3, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>My employer will be in violation of ACA. Sure, it won't be penalized by Treasury for it. But that'll be cold comfort when I sue for damages.</p>— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) <a href="https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/statuses/352217794173083649">July 3, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

basso · Jul 2, 2013

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>So, now that we've passed Obamacare and found out what's in it, the administration is desperate to delay it. <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Forward&src=hash">#Forward</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23tcot&src=hash">#tcot</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23p2&src=hash">#p2</a></p>— Phineas Fahrquar (@irishspy) <a href="https://twitter.com/irishspy/statuses/352219961973936129">July 3, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

brantonli24 · Jul 2, 2013

Dude, who on earth are these people you are tweeting?

justtxyank · Jul 2, 2013

basso said: ↑

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>I'm not entirely sure this is gonna work out like the Admin thinks.</p>— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) <a href="https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/statuses/352216761648685057">July 3, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Suppose I get hired next year by a firm that decides not to make health insurance part of my benefits package. Suppose it has 100 employees.</p>— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) <a href="https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/statuses/352217125118676995">July 3, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Suppose I discover it's costing me more to buy insurance than it would have cost for my employer to procure it at a group rate.</p>— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) <a href="https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/statuses/352217254940782594">July 3, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>So, suppose I sue my employer for failing to comply with ACA. Note: Obama is suspending *employer* reporting requirements and penalties.</p>— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) <a href="https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/statuses/352217497770012672">July 3, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>My employer will be in violation of ACA. Sure, it won't be penalized by Treasury for it. But that'll be cold comfort when I sue for damages.</p>— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) <a href="https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/statuses/352217794173083649">July 3, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

This person doesn't understand how PPACA works.

cml750 · Jul 2, 2013

basso said: ↑

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>So, now that we've passed Obamacare and found out what's in it, the administration is desperate to delay it. <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Forward&src=hash">#Forward</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23tcot&src=hash">#tcot</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23p2&src=hash">#p2</a></p>— Phineas Fahrquar (@irishspy) <a href="https://twitter.com/irishspy/statuses/352219961973936129">July 3, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

Too funny!!! This is an absolute horrible law. I know my healthcare has gone up tremendously since this fiasco began.

mc mark · Jul 2, 2013

Clutch can we ban posting tweets. Talk about lazy

Forums

Obamacare Already Having Adverse Effects

Ubiquitin Member
Supporting Member

Granville Member

rpr52121 Sober Fan
Supporting Member

Classic Member

Major Member

Classic Member

juicystream Member

Batman Jones Member

Commodore Member

bobmarley Member

Amiga Member

basso Member
Supporting Member

Commodore Member

basso Member
Supporting Member

basso Member
Supporting Member

basso Member
Supporting Member

brantonli24 Member

justtxyank Member

cml750 Member

mc mark Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Obamacare Already Having Adverse Effects

Ubiquitin Member Supporting Member

Granville Member

rpr52121 Sober Fan Supporting Member

Classic Member

Major Member

Classic Member

juicystream Member

Batman Jones Member

Commodore Member

bobmarley Member

Amiga Member

basso Member Supporting Member

Commodore Member

basso Member Supporting Member

basso Member Supporting Member

basso Member Supporting Member

brantonli24 Member

justtxyank Member

cml750 Member

mc mark Member

Share This Page

Ubiquitin Member
Supporting Member

rpr52121 Sober Fan
Supporting Member

basso Member
Supporting Member

basso Member
Supporting Member

basso Member
Supporting Member

basso Member
Supporting Member